Conversation with Master Buddha and TMichael: Gay Marriage

aplicacion para conocer gente cerca TM: I’ve been reading news accounts of the battle between those who favor gay marriage being sanctioned under law and those who oppose it. Some oppose it on religious grounds and some on biological grounds in that it doesn’t facilitate pro-creation naturally. What is your view on the religious grounds for or against gay marriage?

como amarrar a un hombre para que sea solo mio Master Buddha: If a man and a woman have sexual intercourse, there is a probability pregnancy will result, and a second probability that child birth will follow. This is commonly known and understood in modern society. That wasn’t always the case—many centuries ago it was a mystery how offspring were conceived by the vast majority of human population. There arose from the mystery many superstitions around conception and child birth. Conception and child birth require the engagement of male and female contributing each their part. This is a biologic fact. It doesn’t require a social bond to be successful. As a matter of modern fact, it doesn’t require that they ever physically engage in person (artificial insemination).

lesbian only dating sites TM: Ok, I’m with you so far. Creating babies follows sex between a man and a woman, or by artificial means. A long time ago, and I hope a very long time ago, people didn’t quite make the connection and so developed superstitious beliefs around baby-making.

citas online essalud Master Buddha: So, by biologic fact a gay male marriage cannot produce offspring between the two partners, but can enlist a female outside the marriage to perform that role. The same of course then for two female partners. This means that gay couples are capable of producing offspring by proxy of a third partner if they so desire. This is the same for heterosexual couples who are unable to conceive a child. It merely accommodates the biologic fact.

site de rencontre dans le 90 Master Buddha: I’m pulling this apart for you, because it can get very tangled. At some point in human history there was a shift in social belief that the chief role of marriage between a man and woman was to create offspring. To ensure that their offspring would not just be running around in reckless abandon they also created social convention around the single-family household and the early beginnings of property rights. The child belonged to the parents and the household and was subject to their supervision and responsibility, and they together as a household subject to the larger society and community.

rencontres el jadida Master Buddha: It is difficult to separate religion from social, because religion is a social enterprise. This is why this subject is so impossible for some people to intellectually grasp. I will continue now to explain.

Religion is a social enterprise, which means that humans have created religions and formed into social sects in order to propagate their religious beliefs and social tenets.

click this link now TM: Hold on a second, almost all religious people will say that religions were created by God, or Gods through prophets or enlightened intermediaries (present company included), and that they are followers of that particular religious teaching. God laid the foundation and they followed his word to build on it.

aplicaciones gratis para conocer gente Master Buddha: Please refer to other conversations we’ve had on the subject of truth and how it is convoluted with faith and a state of not knowing everything. Humans will posit truth on a great many things, but that doesn’t make it true. It is merely their belief in what is true. Let’s assume for a moment that religions were founded on direct expression of truth from God or Gods. Humans, as you suggest, interpret that and build on it to make it a social belief system. The filter applied is still of human origin, and therefore subject to the ignorance of humanity.

TM: I don’t mean to stray from our topic, but this seems important to clear up, because so much of what follows is dependent upon this point. You’re saying that religions are social institutions and are birthed and propagated as social tenets, not the word of God.

Master Buddha: I don’t wish to belabor the point of origin of religious beliefs, and so for our discussion I said we could assume that religions spring from the word of God or Gods. Humans the take that word and add to it their interpretations and filter it into social conventions by which they live. That means that religions become social entities imbued with human constructs of socialized behavior. May we continue?

TM: Yes, but maybe we have to come back to this at some point.

Master Buddha: The great problem for humanity in building laws that govern society is that they cannot separate social convention from religious teachings. Gay marriage as it relates to law must pass through the filters of social convention, which is conditioned by religious beliefs. So you can easily see the conundrum. And this provokes a challenge to the truths held by those who believe that the word of God prohibits such human relations.

For them the syllogism flows like this:
God has said that the purpose of a man|woman relationship is to create babies and form single-family households and rear their offspring.
Gay couples cannot create babies directly.
Therefore, gay marriage is not sanctioned by God, and must be excluded from human options.

For religious believers, denying this logic is tantamount to denying the word of God. It will then undermine a society based upon the word of God and eventually lead to the ruin of society. How it reconciles with many other words of God in which it produces conflict and contradiction is inconvenient, but doesn’t cause their belief to waver. They must default to the only intellectual escape possible, which is that God is mysterious and knows more than humankind, and so it isn’t the place of humanity to question this contradiction. It is for humanity to follow the things that are clear as well as the things that aren’t without fail. God will sort it out later.

TM: Yes, I believe you’ve stated that correctly according to what they believe. But is that correct?

Master Buddha: The question is presented incorrectly. Let me re-frame it. What is the role of religion for humanity and what is the role of social convention in creating laws that govern human behavior?

TM: So, you won’t just come right out with an answer to settle the question will you?

Master Buddha: I’m taking an approach that will help you understand the issue and formulate an answer. As we have stated previously in these conversations, the role of religion is to represent spiritual theories for individuals to ponder in an effort to expand their imaginations and range of possibilities for living a better life. Religions form from spiritual ideas and concepts, that in the pure state apply to an individual. Religions become social institutions because they are comprised of like-minded individuals. The purpose of which is to share and discuss the spiritual idea and concepts.

Humans have taken religions in this social form and expanded them into governance entities. Therein lies the problem. It sets up massive conflicts between different religions and between members of society who subscribe to those different religious beliefs. The only way for a system of religious-dominant laws to work without constant and violent conflict is too segregate inhabitants by religion and assign each to their own geographic place. Since that isn’t practical today, you must have a different way. Democratic societies have created a separation of religion and government. Ideally, this should work in a pluralistic religious society. But, it doesn’t work as perfectly as intended, because those who are aligned with religious beliefs that have been interpreted to guide their daily lives in an integrated society, immediately come in conflict with behaviors they find inconsistent with their beliefs. The resulting dissonance cries for resolution. They seek to alter laws to remove the dissonance.

TM: I can see why you’re not so popular with Christians and Muslims. From what I observe both religious groups would love for everyone to line up with them to rule the world according to their beliefs. In that scenario they could outlaw all the behaviors inconsistent with their beliefs and presumably find the harmony in governance.

Master Buddha: Well, secretly all religious groups wish for that scenario, but some are more vocal than others.

TM: Years ago when I visited Nepal and spent some time in Kathmandu, I noticed the incredible non-hostile melding of Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and Christians. But back to our topic. How do we bring this conversation to a conclusion?

Master Buddha: Gay marriage could only be subject to religious scrutiny within a purely religious context. Religious context is confined to individuals and their peers for introspection. Social institutions that are erected for governance must take into consideration that there are many types of life styles and it is the responsibility of government to create laws that promote harmony among the differences while removing violence. The fact that gays must seek legal sanction within your laws informs us that the separation between government and religion is not yet a reality.

TM: Will it ever be?

Master Buddha: It’s possible of course, but only when people representing religions surrender to living peacefully with others with different beliefs and abstain from their agendas of hegemony in thought and behavior.

Conversation with Master Buddha and TMichael: Faith

TM: What is the nature of faith as it relates to matters spiritual or religious?

Master Buddha: The nature of faith rests on the premise that there are things one can’t know for certain through direct observation, and so one must imagine that given a strong feeling that something must be true, then it is accepted as true. It becomes a belief in one’s truth based upon the strong feeling.

TM: So what we consider to be evidence of truth through direct observation of facts is not faith?

Master Buddha: Well, that is faith also to some extent, because has one ever experienced absolute proof of truth? Can you truly say that even the things you thought you proved to yourself through direct observation have always been really true? Have there been occasions where you observed a thing to be true and later discovered your observations were not so accurate? There is usually some element of doubt and faith fills in the gap.

TM: Aren’t all these considerations about truth relative to time and our progressive understanding of many things that change over time?

Master Buddha: Yes, of course. Your understanding of truth changes as you grow to reach new understandings about yourself, others and the universe. There is always a measure of faith thrown in to close the gaps and to bridge your doubt and what you perceive is truth in that moment. Once you think you have reached some absolute truth, you will soon discover the illusion inherent in that notion. It is better to say, for now I think I know the truth of this matter and I’ll take it on faith as I continue searching for new information, new knowledge, new understanding about this.

There are those people who believe in a mechanistic universe. That there are physical laws that behave in a way that explains all the phenomena that surrounds you. You might say that even for those believers there is a measure of faith to fill in the parts that are missing.

TM: Some people allow more room for faith and some it seems allow less room. But you’re saying that we all allow some room for faith regardless of our beliefs?

Master Buddha: Yes, I’m saying that. As science has progressed, it has revealed the vast knowledge that humanity has amassed in understanding your world. It has also revealed the vast ignorance. If you plot that on a time continuum you can see that the more that you know, the greater your understanding that there is so much more you don’t know. So, you take what you know and you project a little further into the future of the possibilities of things that could be true. That is a form of faith. If you act upon faith by assuming the projections are true, then it is meaningful. To speculate is to explore ideas about truth and to act upon faith that something is true is commitment.

TM: It seems to me that people of religious and spiritual faith rely upon teachings of the past to form their foundation, which requires faith that the teachings were accurately recording and interpreted.

Master Buddha: And that the projections of those truths are applicable to humanity today. There are many new teachings brought forth today and they are received similarly as were the teachings given long ago. There is a resistance to new teachings by humanity, because they cling to the old ones, the ones they were taught are true. There is a lag in time for new beliefs to be accepted.

TM: No way around that is there?

Master Buddha: Not likely it will change any time soon. It is human nature and probably a good characteristic if it is moderate.

Conversation with Buddha and TMichael: Anger Management

TM: May I ask about anger and its role in our lives and relationships? Will you begin with offering a definition of anger?

Master Buddha: What may seem obvious to most everyone is that anger is a reaction to not getting what you want when you want it or in the way you want it. It can be your fault, or it can be someone else’s fault. The second reflex of anger is retribution or evening the score to recover what you didn’t get plus a bonus for having suffered the agony of anger and inconvenience. There is also anger once removed, meaning on behalf of an injustice done to another for which you have a connection or affinity. The reflex of retribution is the same.

TM: I have a difficult time knowing when to express anger, that is, when it’s appropriate and when it isn’t. Sometimes I wonder whether or not anger is necessary or not, even though it seems to arise as an involuntary reaction.

Master Buddha: Let’s start with the involuntary reaction part of your statement and then move to the rest. Anger is a natural human emotion just like love, sadness, grief, joy, happiness, bliss, disappointment and others in the spectrum. They arise spontaneously as a reaction to what is happening in your life. This as a general statement is true for every human on earth. Then how do we account for the differences in reactions among people? Why do some people react violently to the slightest provocation and others almost not at all to severe events?

Humans share in common an emotional body that works in concert with your physical and mental bodies. There is an influence based upon one’s past life history—what must be experienced this lifetime? There is group connection—what must be worked out for this group of beings? There is the influence of parents, family and community that impacts one’s emotional body and conditions its reactions. Beyond these local influences, there is responsibility from humanity’s role on Earth.

The confluence of these many factors produce differences in reactions from one being to another.

As a social concern, there must be a range of acceptable reactions and for that humans have erected laws to regulate behavior. Within those laws one will find instances that permit retribution resulting in death of the offending party that passes as justifiable because of the provocation of anger and the acceptance that that person is not liable for such reactions, or as is in some cultures, entitled to the justice of the extreme reaction. Other cultures don’t condone anger reactions to that extent, but make some allowance for it that support the concept of it being involuntary if acted out spontaneously. There are also social customs below the threshold of laws that regulate behavior.

To answer your question of whether or not anger is necessary, we must ask to what purpose is it necessary.

TM: Some people I’ve spoken to about this usually say that expressing anger is natural and involuntary and that it releases the energy from you and that’s a good and natural thing, then you move on. Their assertion is that anger is within the constellation of natural human emotions as you just said and that we eventually evolve to the point that we can freely express anger without killing one another, but express we shall just like any other emotion.

Master Buddha: Would you say that as a rule, expression of anger has the potential to be more destructive in its effects than the expression of joy or sadness?

TM: In some cases yes. But maybe that’s because people overreact to some things due to repression of anger until they explode disproportionately.

Master Buddha: That’s possible, but let’s go back to your question to what purpose it serves and so is it necessary. If our definition of anger described the circumstances of anger, then let’s answer what is anger energetically? What purpose does the delivery of that energy serve?

Anger, energetically speaking springs from the desire nature, which in turn reflects human survival needs, and desires beyond the necessities of life. Anger is the defender of those personal and group needs and desires. If they are threatened, then anger arises to defend. Energetically, it is linked to desire and it does not discriminate between basic needs and frivolous wants without the help of the mental body. Anger at its root level, just is the defender that can be, when combined with mental energy, an impetus to aggression.

TM: In the desire nature and its list of wants, do you include things like dignity and respect?

Master Buddha: Yes, of course. That is a matter of ego interpretation of necessities that we have covered elsewhere.

I wish to draw your attention to the fact that anger derives its force and origin from its role as defender within the human realm of physical, emotional and mental.

TM: From that are you implying that anger doesn’t exist in other realms, such as spiritual?

Master Buddha: I say emphatically that anger does not exist in the spiritual realm because there is no need that goes unfulfilled.

TM: What about the whole Lucifer rebellion? That sounds like some needs unfulfilled.

Master Buddha: That was a matter of pride and desire, not of anger. It was a calculated, creative execution of a perceived right of domain. It failed.

TM: So spirits in the universe weren’t angry with Lucifer and his minions for disrupting and corrupting everything? I mean it seems like a major conflict and you’re saying there was no anger involved and I find that hard to believe.

Master Buddha: What can I say other than what I know to be true? There was disappointment in the whole affair, but not anger or retribution associated with anger. There were consequences that were accepted with responsibility by all involved.

TM: Okay. Please go back to your line of thought.

Master Buddha: Anger finds its origin in the human realm. Given that, we can look for its necessity there. Its purpose is to defend. But is that necessary?

Master Buddha: That would be a difficult argument wouldn’t it? Many people would disagree that desires are unnecessary. What about basic survival needs? Don’t those need defending? Can’t anger be necessary for that?

TM: Yes, I suppose so. But couldn’t they be defended without anger? Why is anger necessary to arouse defense?

Master Buddha: Because it is. This is where humanity is right now. As the human race evolves closer and closer to its spiritual nature there will be a diminishment and eventually a disappearance of anger as the impetus for defense. Over time there has been and will continue to be this gradual receding of anger.

TM: I’m surprised. I never would have guessed that the official ‘Master’ position is that acting out anger is okey-dokey.

Master Buddha: Well, we have to cover this a bit more to qualify that position. I think what you’ll discover is that our understanding of human nature encompasses a realistic perspective of long term evolution of human characteristics and traits. The expression and use of anger as a defense mechanism is one. There are others.

TM: I think I need some elaboration on this, because it goes against what I believe.

Master Buddha: And you believe?

TM: Anger is a natural emotion arising from our attachment to what we desire and feel entitled to have. I don’t believe it’s necessary, but we are conditioned to express it, violently sometimes, and to accept it and actually be entertained by it. I believe there are ways to express anger without being harmful to others and that seeking revenge and retribution create more attachment to the experience. I agree this is an evolutionary process, but surely we at the point where we can see that anger isn’t necessary so that we can explore other ways of providing for our survival.

Master Buddha: Does it make you angry that others can’t see this point and share your belief?

TM: A little.

Master Buddha: This is one of those conundrums for which we can’t assert what should be based upon what we’d like it to be—it just is what it is. And at this point in human evolution there is a substantial number among the world population that experience anger differently from the belief you have stated and it’s going to take some time for the weight to shift. In the meantime there is progress toward peaceful solutions among people who have recognized, if nothing else, that peaceful solutions grant more security to the protection of needs and wants than it does by using anger and retribution. It’s a start. You don’t make the shift by being angry or judgmental towards those who still regard anger, violence, war, or force as the natural solution to feeling threatened. It is the natural solution for those grounded in the materiality of humanity, and that is the majority population of the world.

It will change over time through the enduring examples by those who have mastered peaceful solutions to threatening situations. It will happen. Patience is required.

Conversation with Jesus and TMichael: Spirituality and Governance

TM: Neither of you have ever taken much interest in politics and government in our conversations. And yet both of those activities have such a major impact on humanity that I wonder why you have stayed away from those areas.

Master Jesus: There are Masters who work directly with those institutions and we coordinate with them of course. Religion and spirituality must be transcendent, from the perspective of teaching, while incorporated as a matter of practical application. Humans must be free to explore their personal spiritual nature without encumbrance. If the process of spiritual self-discovery is intertwined with politics and government there is no way to allow complete freedom to the individual and control the many variables of a society.

Governments must be able to curb freedoms of its members to the extent that it is necessary to preserve peace and remove violence from their daily lives. But spiritual freedom is absolutely necessary to the individual if he is to reach his pinnacle of potential. He will in turn contribute mightily to society through his daily activities, like work and governance. It’s a mistake to think that spiritual understanding is a code for social governance at the group level, especially as diverse as are the populations of Earth.

TM: Yes, but governments are made up of spiritual and non-spiritual people who have to draw upon some code that is embodied in the laws of the land. Are you saying that the spiritual people shouldn’t suggest using spiritual understandings to guide the creating, enforcing and regulation of laws?

Master Jesus: I’m saying there is a fundamental difference between an individual understanding spiritual realities and a society choosing a code of conduct for its members. One is based upon complete freedom to explore and delve deeply into personal matters, while the other is dedicated to finding the most superficial level of engagement across a diverse array of personalities that must live together in peace and harmony. Without peace and harmony there is no point to governance because there is no point to living in a community. Humans congregate because it serves them to do so. Governance preserves the value of the community from a social perspective, not a spiritual one. By its nature, governance will have spiritual overtones if it consists of spiritual individuals. But it shouldn’t consciously strive to integrate spiritual codes into legal codes.

TM: I’m not sure I’m grasping this concept. Let me state it and you tell me- so if the members of a society tend to be spiritual themselves, even though they may not consciously try to mirror their internal spiritual nature in devising laws, it inevitably will mirror their spiritual nature. Is that what you mean?

Master Jesus: That’s close. But let me put it another way that may help you to understand. If I am a member of a society, I am also an individual. I accept that my social freedoms intersect with other members of my society and I accept that I may not express all of who I am all the time in the context of society. There is a governor so to speak on my actions in order to preserve the peace of my society just as others are doing the same. We agree to blunt our expressions to the degree that it is in the best interest for us to do so.

I am an individual who is permitted complete freedom to explore my spiritual nature and so are the other members. I can choose my beliefs and can worship whatever or whomever I choose in whatever way I choose. Now the big qualifier is that I can do this so long as it doesn’t involve me violating anyone else’s right to enjoy the same freedom. This means that my personal spiritual experience serves me individually and others who consent of their free will. But it shall not be imposed upon others.

The US and Canada have the closest approximation of this arrangement, as do some European nations and other democracies throughout the world. It requires a general sense of overall freedom in order to allow freedom for religious or spiritual pursuit. Governments that are authoritarian will not permit those freedoms because there will be an imbalance between the secular and the spiritual and eventually human nature will push for freedoms in the secular. Dictators know this and thus control religious freedom to a level equal to or slightly less than the secular freedoms.

The measure of a government’s willingness to permit spiritual freedom for its members can be seen in how it treats secular freedoms. Presumably in the freer societies, members openly participate in the adoption of codes of governance. More and more in your country have the leaders and powerful influences begun to strip away secular freedoms under the guise of security for all. You can see how this is working out and they understand that they must maintain the balance with religious freedom, i.e. religious freedom cannot expand beyond the secular boundaries. It will be a matter of time before small efforts will be made to curb religious freedoms. Without an adjustment in this way, they risk losing the ground they have gained in reducing the secular freedoms.

TM: I can see why you stay out of politics. So, I do understand the balance required. But it seems like a difficult thing to measure when changes are subtle.

Master Jesus: It’s a difficult thing to measure under any circumstances because of the complexities of modern society. But you do have a baseline of freedom from which any deviation can be marked. Just as there is a political outcry against reduction of personal freedoms, so too will there be a rejection of loss of religious freedom when that moment arrives. It is less subtle to those affected and they will signal the deviation from the baseline. Just listen.

TM: Will you speculate on a motive for reduction of freedom by those in power?

Master Jesus: I think that it is a mix of motivations, some are consciously aware of what they are doing and others’ motivations are so ancient that they are operating on automatic reactions of fear and greed. In modern societies, at least the past 2500 years, there has been recognition of this balance required between the secular and the religious, even when the religious right and might is used to govern the secular, and even when the secular powers have tried to extinguish or marginalize religious power. Politicians and rulers have learned that there must be balance even when it is slightly skewed to one side or the other. That may sound like a contradiction, but balance doesn’t always mean equal portions or weights; it isn’t needed to govern if your intent is to control others for your purposes. There is point at which one can push his agenda to achieve his goals while permitting just enough freedom to keep the whole system from falling over. The above statements, notwithstanding, the thing that cannot happen is that religious freedom cannot be greater than the secular freedom without the system toppling.

TM: Why not?

Master Jesus: There are two reasons. The first is that religious leaders can be prone to the same corruption spurred by power and vanity as secular leaders. If they are too much in a position of power because of an imbalance in freedoms it is more likely they will grab for the secular domain to pull under their power, which will force a reduction in the religious freedoms that helped them gain their power in the first place.

The second reason is that individuals are who free to pursue their spiritual life and spiritual understanding will eventually recognize the injustice in a system that too strictly rules their secular life and they will rise up against it.

So you can have a system whereby the secular freedom is equal to or slightly greater than the religious freedom and there can be balance. But the opposite is not true. There must be a relative balance up or down the scale in the ratio of permissiveness to restriction.

TM: Well, wouldn’t the result then be a balance, i.e. secular freedoms would rise slightly and religious freedoms might stay the same, but drop relatively?

Master Jesus: Yes, that is the point of my statement. A system whereby the religious freedoms are greater than secular freedoms cannot be sustained. There will inevitably be an adjustment.

TM: So, how do you coordinate then with the Masters who work in the area of government?

Master Jesus: We coordinate very much in the same way you on the physical plane would coordinate such an effort, but without the politics of egos and fear. We meet on a regular basis to discuss our respective plans and we identify areas that we can focus on together to bring about specific results that accomplish our respective goals. Please remember that we follow a plan that has been created by beings who are the creators of this world. So, in that sense we are working within a general framework that has anticipated many of the variables that exist today and has also provided many of the solutions for us to follow. There is a range of experimentation though and that is how we learn.

TM: I followed that, but want to know what you mean by “beings who are the creators of this world.” That sounds like we’re back to the alien discussion when you phrase it that way.

Master Jesus: I won’t repeat ground that has been covered in that conversation. But let me say that it takes awhile for you to accept the concept that there are other beings in the universe and that they just might have something to do with this planet and all its inhabitants. When I use the term ‘beings’ I am of course referring to beings of a spiritual existence who have created all the worlds in this universe. You cannot yet accept that this is true, yet you can’t offer an alternate explanation for how all this came to be. This assumes an acceptance that there is more than just the physical existence of what one can identify through the five known human senses. There is a great body of human scientific work to explain the purely physical part, and there is only religious work to explain what is behind it all. And that work is antiquated for the times and is now being updated through release of new information.

TM: You’re right, repetition is needed to help me get to some of the larger ideas. But I think I represent a lot of folks who have heard the same story for so long that it is difficult to let go of it even if we want to. Most of us struggle with balancing our checkbooks and finding quality time with our kids and friends, or just quiet time to contemplate these matters. I know you and the other Masters have compassion for us, but every once in awhile I feel I have to defend the difficulties of human life.

Master Jesus: All of the Masters who are in a position to lead humanity at this time have all served at one time or another in human form and well know the rigors of daily living. We also know the stubbornness of the human ego and how it clings to beliefs and attachments to desires of the flesh for comfort and a sense of security. We are reminded of our time in human form and what a struggle it was to go to sleep with the worries of the day upon one’s mind and how difficult it was to wake up and start the day when those worries had not receded through the night.

But don’t mistake our compassion as an excuse for the inherent laziness of the ego. We appeal to the soul of humanity to rise above the petty grievances of the ego and recognize your true selves. It is your ego that frets over the checkbook and whether or not your hair is clean enough, thick enough or pretty enough. It is your ego that wastes time and energy fretting over the million and one things that have to do with your self-image and how others see you that make you attractive to one another. There are deeper issues that will satisfy the soul’s longing for connection with each other, but you must drop your infatuation with the appetite of the ego and embrace what is important to your spirit. That is the role of the Masters, to bring you to that realization.

TM: Is it laziness of the ego or just ignorance? I know that when my ego runs on mind energy it tirelessly pursues its agenda; there’s nothing lazy about it.

Master Jesus: Yes, perhaps you are correct on this point under certain circumstances like worry or anxiety. But then there are the states of contentment for creature comforts that bring a wave of self-satisfaction to the ego and create an attachment to its comfort zone. This is more to my point of laziness.

TM: Would you say that the ego is the biggest problem in getting to the realization you’re referring to?

Master Jesus: The ego was born with the endowment of mind and elevated mental capabilities of humans. It has grown in proportion to those capabilities. Therefore, you see magnificent sized egos who also possess great powers of creation. Likewise you see powerful creators with virtually little egos. The ego is the primary impediment to realization of the true self, but it is not a permanent barrier. Nor is it in most cases absolute. That makes our work possible to succeed. For you as an individual to determine your success, it is a matter of allocation of personal energy, i.e. how much goes to ego manufacturing and maintenance and how much goes to integration of the self and higher creativity?

The ego is a creation of the personal self, meaning the corporeal-self. It is, in and of itself an amazing creation, except that it also insane and that negates the ingenuity of its creation. What human has not confused the ego for the true self? That is its power. It supplants the identity of the self and runs the show so to speak. The problem of course is that, since it isn’t real it requires enormous energy to create the illusion that it is real. It enlists the emotional nature because this allows it to manipulate the desire aspect, which it needs to preserve its own control. The physical body, to the extent it is capable is the servant to the ego and emotional desires. Thus one can see the corporeal-self and its identity as the ego.

TM: Okay, that’s a lot to absorb. One piece at a time. If the ego has been created by the corporeal-self, then it exists and is real, right?

Master Jesus: We have covered reality versus illusion, but can do it again if you wish.

TM: Maybe the lite-version to help with this.

Master Jesus: If I write a novel and create a character, is that character real or imagined (an illusion)? Would you expect to encounter that character on the street in front of your house?

TM: I could argue that the character is real within the context it was created. But for me walking down the street, no it is not real.

Master Jesus: Your ego and everyone’s personal ego are the characters created by you and everyone else. Your ego seems real to you as you live within the context that you have created for the ego and it will furnish you with other characters that it will script into your story for the purpose of maintaining the profile it wishes to maintain. In this vein, everyone is living within the context of a script written by her ego, who starts out as the character but transforms into the author. It is the filter through which you and everyone else lives. This is a personal reality in the way the novel is a personal reality of its creator the author. But from an objective observer outside that personal reality it is seen for the fiction that it is.

To summarize, the ego is your personal illusion, which all humans share and collectively create an entire field of illusion. Your true self lies hid behind the curtain of this performance waiting for reality to take the stage. The soul must make the recognition that the ego is not the real, true self and begin to dissemble the illusory world created by the ego. The ego of course believes that it is the real self and has already built in defense mechanisms for this attack on its existence. This is a great period of time of tension between the soul and the ego as the soul struggles to let go of the ego and the ego struggles to maintain its place of reality. The spirit is ever planting clues for the soul to recognize the truth in order to keep its appointment with reality and throw off the ego as impostor. Maybe this goes for thousands of lifetimes until finally the soul breaks free of the illusion and embraces the spirit, which begins the phase of integration.

TM: So, we’re all insane and live in an illusion because you and other spirits are our objective observes and tell us so. And your work is to teach us how to escape our illusion and arrive at the reality that you show is reality. How do I know that’s not just another illusion and one a damn sight worse than the one I’m in?

Master Jesus: As a teacher I don’t define reality for you, but I help you reach your true self who will inform you about reality. I can witness for you the truth, which I present and you can decide. And yes, at some level there is a truth, beyond which, we are incapable of knowing reality. That of course means that we are by some measure, in an illusion, but that point is so far beyond where we are today that it isn’t worth much to ponder.